hangingontonothing.com

Debating the numbers

I think it's interesting to take a look at the polling numbers following Thursday night's debate. Overwhelmingly those polled said that Kerry won the debate and portrayed his ideas the clearest. But I'm not so sure those are the most important numbers.

]]> When asked who had a better understanding of the issues it was a tie. When asked which candidate agreed with you more on the issues you care about, Bush was favored 49-46. When asked who was more believable, Bush was favored 50 to 45. When asked which candidate was more likable, Bush was favored 48 to 41. And when asked which candidate demonstrated they were tough enough for the job, Bush was favored 54 to 37. [you can take a look at the rest of the numbers here]

And so, when you get past the adrenaline rush of the debate and the surface issues (who looked more calm and collected up there, which Kerry seems to be the overwhelming favorite), these aren't really good polling numbers for Kerry. Senator NotBush needed to sway voters, not to appear the smoothest.

We will still have to wait to see what the polling numbers look like in the various battleground states before we will know exactly what ramifications this debate had. I would go even further to say that we will need to see what this looks like two weeks out (though by then there will already have been a V.P. debate and a couple more presidential debates). So, in effect, about the first poll that will come out after the hype wears off from this stuff will be the big one -- election day.

This is why the election matters

The #1 reason why this election matters: the nation's high court may be shaped for years to come by the winner of this election. Am I worried about what Kerry might or might not get done in his possible four years? No. This is the only reason, in my estimation, why this election matters.

My ramble about a lot of hype

It's interesting the way people are looking at this debate as if it is going to be some huge piece of the election puzzle. I guess it could have been for Bush, but it's unlikely that it could have been for Kerry (barring something horrible from Bush). If Bush would have surely won the debate it might have solidified his lead. Sure, Kerry may gain a little on the debate, but the lead for Bush has been growing slowly but steadily for some time now and I think even with a small bump for Kerry that the President will immediately start gaining that back. These things are always huge for a few days until the "experts" get their hands on what was said. Then you realize that neither candidate really said anything (heck, they rarely even answered a posed question).

]]>
The whole evening will turn into the sickening weeks that surround the Super Bowl, where all of a sudden the game is secondary and the analysis is primary. I have to admit, I really looked forward to the debate going in. But after watching a few minutes of it I was disappointed. I can probably be disappointed with Bush, as it sounds like the format was dictated by his people. But it's just that: disappointment with the format. Neither candidate was really allowed to shine in this format, and that's precisely what the Bush people were after, I suppose. Why risk a lead the president has built just to try to gain the reward of knocking Kerry out of the race at this point? Kerry is definitely more experienced and polished at this sort of thing.

I don't know what to take from this other than I don't think there was as much to take as we inevitably thing minutes after one of these ends. Conservatives say Kerry had style, Bush had substance. Liberals say Kerry won altogether or that it was a tie. It seems most people won't say Bush won, though even with CBS's numbers (the worst for Bush) more than 1/4 of the people said he won and less than half said Kerry. I don't see this as a Bush win, but I don't see it as a Kerry win, either. I just see it as a reiteration of the stump speeches that have been happening for months.

Comments Deleted

I've started deleting comments from people who are merely here to infuriate other people. As always, I'm happy to have posts from the opposing viewpoint, but I'm not interested in name-calling or accusations.

Just because John Kerry's best argument is always "you're lying" doesn't mean yours has to be (and boy did he get nailed on that one last night, though by Lehrer and not Bush). Substantial argument is good. Otherwise find a different place for your accusations and name-calling.

Both of them sucked

The debate last night was worthless and a waste of time. While the people who look at the debate on the surface and don't delve into what was really said, well, you all have your opinions. But what about answering the questions asked? Neither of them did so. It might as well have been two seperate stump speeches where they stated, over and over again, the same stuff they've been saying for months now.

Anyone who saw this debate as a Bush win or a Kerry win needs to look at the transcript of it. In style I'd say Kerry dominated the first half, while Bush more than dominated the second half. But after reading the transcript it's apparent that neither guy answered any questions. Both of them knew how to turn it into whatever question they wanted to answer. If this continues into the next two debates they will just be a waste of time.

Kerry would have to pull the troops out immediately

If Kerry seriously believes that this was the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place, he is going to have serious problems winning the war should he win the upcoming election. In fact, not only will it be difficult for him to win the war, but he pretty much has to pull all of the troops, doesn't he? I mean, if you are going to tell your soldiers, your citizens, the people of Iraq (the good and the bad), and the leaders of other nations that this is war is triply wrong, you have no choice but to pull the troops.

Kerry criticizes himself while patting himself on the back

"I supported the decision. It was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein." But, it was "a colossal error of judgment" for the president, but not me. It's kind of a fun conundrum, isn't it? Kerry's definitely a philosopher....

Winning Catch-Phrase

"The only thing consistent about my opponent's position is he's been inconsistent." -President Bush, talking about John Kerry in the first presidential debate

Kerry should be happy!

John Kerry's campaign is trying to do away with timer lights on the lecterns for tonight's debate. They feel the lights are distracting. Maybe a little distraction would keep Kerry at 2 or 3 positions on an issue rather than a dozen (approximately the number of positions he's taken on Iraq).

Kerry should be happy there are limits in place!

Kerry's a better liar than Bush could ever dream of being

So, Bush is accused by liberals of being a liar. It seems the real issue is with Kerry. According to this article from the Chicago Sun-Times Kerry has been lying about a lot of things for quite some time now.

Scary

A few months ago I had constant aching pains in my shoulder so I saw a doctor. He did a few exercises and determined that it wasn't a tear (suggesting it might be a pinched nerve). So he sent me on my way with some trial Vioxx. I opened up one of the trial packs and there was a note in there with the first phrase of "May cause death!" At that point Ibuprofen and a little pain sounded alright to me. Now it turns out the drug might not be the safest anti-inflammatory.

National Review Online Again

NRO has surfaced another great one from John Kerry. He recently explained his "I voted for it before I voted against it" bit by saying it was an inarticulate moment late in the evening. Well, it turns out it was at noon.

The scary thing is that the president of the United States has to work some pretty late nights. He can't be flip-flopping at any hour of the day or we are in real trouble.

Kerry Waffles

Here is a nice list of all of the (whatever you want to call them) at National Review Online.

Dr. Phil endorses President Bush?

"I am really committed to putting family back in America," McGraw says in an outtake from the show. "I think it's what you have put in the White House, and I think it's what we need to put back in America."

Injuries, injuries, injuries

I don't remember witnessing a football season in which more star players have been injured league-wide. I know there is no measurable statistic for "star players" as the term is subjective, but I wonder if injuries, as a whole, are up this year in the NFL. It's very odd.

The Vikings have already lost a starting TE, a starting FB, a starting offensive tackle, a starting center, a starting defensive lineman, and a starting cornerback. Now, I wouldn't consider these guys all to be stars, but there have been some horrendous injuries this year including starting quarterbacks, running backs, and wide receivers in particular. Hopefully this stops for obvious reasons for the players, but also as a fan of football. This kind of thing is how crappy teams make the playoffs, making the playoffs less enjoyable due to blowouts.